----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:41 AM Subject: Re: TI interpretation of QM
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 01:41:25PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Obviously, this cannot be falsified. Which invokes a significant > > problem for realism. > > No, no problem. I have seen you complicate lots of things by imposing > your interpretation on them, and you say there are "contortions" when > they are just in your mind. An interesting statement, because it is a well known problem. > If it cannot be falsified, it is just in someone's mind. Real knowledge need only describe what can be > measured experimentally. You speak of a problem that cannot be measured, > therefore the problem is only in your mind. Oh, my. I think this is a great time to quote d'Espagnat from "Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Second Edition", pp. 245-6. It is from one the later chapters where he considers the interpretations of QM, after a fairly lengthy discussion of the foundations of QM. It was the text book used in my physics graduate seminar on the foundations of QM. "Most of these objections bear on the verifiability postulate: first of all, on its consistency. How do we know that the statement through which this postulate is expressed is correct, since it is not verifiable? Moreover, we cannot have any direct experience of the past or of other minds. If it is true that a statement has a cognitive meaning only if it can be verified or falsified by some experimental procedure that ultimately refers to our sense data, should we consider as meaningless all statements about the past or about the experience of other men? In regard to the objection concerning the meaning of statements on past events, the standard positivist answer is that they are really statements about we future. They are statements about the possible future pieces of evidence that will eventually verify them. To borrow an example from Feynman [4], a historian who makes a statement about Napoleon simply means that, if he goes to a library and opens some books and other documents about Napoleon he will find some written statements that are substantially similar to his own." Given this, I cannot see how you cannot grant that my viewpoint, at the very least, is wrong. I talked to Wigner personally about this, for example, and he affirmed that I understood the problem posed by Bell-Wigner. I've seen articles and columns on this problem in Physics Today. I've participated in discussions with other physicists in open forums, such as sci.physics. I've participated in both this physics and a philosophy graduate seminar on the subject. I'll certainly grant that people have differed with my interpretation, sometimes strongly. But, I think you are the first person who has alleged the problem is only in my mind. > > We have the opinion that physics describes reality, but the reality > > it describes in inherently unobservable. > > Nope, this is nonsense. Experiments test reality, experiments are > observable. In as much as your "physics" is not observable, it does not > describe reality. But, I've never claimed that it describes reality; I've claimed that it describes observations, period. > > This is compounded by the fact that there are several realistic > > interpretations that describe vastly different realities that are > > vying for a place as the best realistic interpretation. And, of > > course, there is no experimental means to pick one over the other. > > If you mean these is no POSSIBLE experimental means to pick one over > the other, then given that they somehow differ, they aren't sticking to > reality, they are making unnecessary or unverifiable assumptions. The assumption they are making is that the universe exists independent of the human mind. >You seem to be attributing these sorts of "realistic" interpretations to me, > but I simply don't worry about them. I guess we may be using different > definitions of "realistic". If you are trying to understand my way of > thinking, then it all comes back to what I said before, the test of all > knowledge is experiment. So, what knowledge do we have from experiment? That is the rub. The past cannot be verified by experimentation. Other people's viewpoints cannot be verified by experimentation. The independent existence of the universe cannot be verified by experimentation. The verification principal cannot be verified by experimentation. > The problem you are talking about, it seems to me, results from many > people feeling a strong need to "understand" or "interpret" experiments > in a way that fits with their worldview (intuition, thought-processes, > etc.). Possibly this is influenced by mystical beliefs that the human > brain is somehow special or favored over other matter or phenomena. Right. The problems with logical positivism are caused by those folks who don't agree with it. > But the world doesn't fit itself to your brain, it is not > human-friendly. >The universe just is. That statement is the one that is problematic. After 75 years of attempts to reconcile that statement with experimental results, we are left with interpretations like MWI or TI. Let me ask a very simple question: what is the spin of an electron in a direction other than the one in which a measurement was most recently made? >It can be measured by experiment. If your knowledge is falsified by experiment, it is > wrong. If your "knowledge" can never be verified by experiment, it is > useless. >You made the statement that scientists who only worry about > reality get little done, which is ridiculous. But, its backed up by history. >The ones who really get little done are those who worry about nothing but philosophy. Reality is a philosophical question, not a scientific one >What a waste. And now I'm done arguing philosophy. There are more useful > threads around here. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. However, I will feel free to point out when you make philosophical statements that cannot be verified by experimentation. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
